Take a look at an article I found from another website. Your thougts on it:

When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh. But what he came to realize wasn't entirely amusing.

Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all — on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien agree.

But according to Miller, he's no friend.

"I did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.

"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."

Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.

If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging.

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge.

"When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller said.

"It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters.

Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans — his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent — was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear.

It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.

But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.

At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What came out was the following:

Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.

"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.

"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

If what Miller says is true — and it would take more than just observations to prove it — then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.

By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just folks" — a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.

This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe.

But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides — imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been designed to appeal to.

An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure.

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying.

"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' — it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.

So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him.

"When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.

This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says — not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."

Miller, without question, is a man with a mission — and laughter isn't it.

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs

My thoughts - what Super Em posted seems quite accurate...scarily accurate. Bush may APPEAR to be an idiot sometimes, but I don't think it's a good idea to underestimate him. What Miller wrote about him pretty much hits the nail on the head, IMHO.

I think that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and other commentators hit the nail on the head when they point out that "he’s devoid, as far as one can tell, of intellectual curiosity." That, in my opinion, is one of his biggest problems.

But then again, the masses, in any society, don't value intellectual curiosity as much as the elites do, so that may not be a huge liability for him. Unfortunately, it may even be to his advantage, as some people are put off by worldly, cerebral people, prefering to see a "common Joe" in the White House.

First of all, it's a sad, sad person that is filled with such anger as to spend all his time trying to tear someone down, by calling him a sociopath no less. Look who's talking! In the words of Mr. T., I pity the fool.

Secondly, addressing the article directly, it's pretty rich (which is code for pure crap.) The only way one could accurately make such assertions is if he spent every waking minute with the President--something that I'm sure he has not done. Is this the kind of arguement that Bush's critics are down to now? Drawing weak inferences from a collection of public statements doesn't cut it. Even the mainstream media has more sense than that! But keep trying--maybe they'll eventually find something real to criticize Bush on... or not.

First of all, it's a sad, sad person that is filled with such anger as to spend all his time trying to tear someone down, by calling him a sociopath no less. Look who's talking! In the words of Mr. T., I pity the fool.

Sounds like Bush on Saddam to me!

And NormalSpeed, you are incorrect in saying that this conclusion could not have been reached through speech alone. In fact, a lot about ourselves comes out in how we talk or act in public. You'd be surprised. Without even knowing it we put our entire mental process on display. The authors ideas are psychologically feasible. Whether he is right or not is a whole other story. Personally I think he may be.

Ok so which is it then, all of you Anti-Bushites, is he a babbling Idiot or a sociopathic genius. You cant have it both ways or is it just another way to Bash George W Bush and make yourselves feel better about who YOU are.

What I find about him, and other Washington pundit types, is that he sees or at least expressess himself in very black and white, good vs. evil terms. You can see this in his "Axis of Evil" speech and much of his rhetoric regarding the war on terrorism. What I feel that he lacks is a deep understanding of the complexities of the big issues. There are a lot of shades of gray out there, and I don't see him addressing them, let alone looking at them. I think that Miller's argument is getting at that.

Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia

"IF you had any training in that area I'm sure you could come up with a very realistic profile on me, just from what I've said here."

Well, let's not get the term "realistic" confused with "feasable." I could, with the proper training, come up with a "feasable" profile on you. But it might be dead wrong.

And make no mistake, I'm not trying to say that Bush is a saint. I'm sure he has his weaknesses like all of us. I tend to believe that this Miller person is just blowing Bush's actual or percieved weaknesses out of proportion, thus lableing him a "sociopath." I'm sure we could all be called that if some of our actions were taken out of context.

At any rate, I just don't have the time or motivation to dig up anything on you, 'Nutsy.